THE KJV ONLY DEBATE, THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS, ERASMUS’ TEXT AND MORE, compiled by David Brewer[1]
According to what I have read, it is well known that Erasmus struggled with the text of Revelation. Since he did not find any manuscripts that contained the book, he borrowed one from his friend Reuchlin. Erasmus was quite pleased with the text, feeling that it was “of such great age that it might be thought to have been written in the time of the apostles.”[2] He had an unknown copyist[3] make a fresh copy and returned the original to Reuchlin. The copyist had difficulty with the text (the manuscript contained a commentary on the book of Revelation, and the actual text of Scripture was imbedded in the commentary), and as a result made some mistakes that found their way into the printed editions of Erasmus’ Greek text, and finally into the text of the King James Version.
The printer, John Froben, began work on the project October 2, 1515. The final product came out on March 1, 1516, weighing in at around 700 pages. Over the span of the next 4 editions, Erasmus’ text would be reprinted 69 times.
Of course, Erasmus’ text was the beginning of what eventually would become known as the Textus Receptus. I bring up the above since the methods he employed, the sources he used, and the conclusions he came to are very important to any real discussion of this topic.
Again, Erasmus had a fresh copy of his friend Reuchlin’s manuscript of Revelation made to both safeguard the original and extract the actual text from the commentary that surrounded it. This led to some problems in Erasmus’ text of the book of Revelation. The most famous of these textual errors are found in Rev 17. In verse 4 the scribe created a new Greek word never before seen, “akathartetos” (the actual term is “akatharta”), which is still to be found in the pages of the Trinitarian Bible Society’s Textus Receptus.
There are many other errors as well in the book of Revelation. The final 6 verses were absent from his lone manuscript. Pressed for time, Erasmus, so as to avoid a “gaping lacuna (a hole or gap)” in the text, translated the passage from the Latin Vulgate into Greek. Erasmus did take criticism for doing this. In the process he made a number of mistakes (at least 16) as we would expect. The amazing thing to realize is that these errors continue in the TR to this very day. We don’t know why Erasmus did not change these errors at a later time. He unashamedly made use of better texts of Revelation in later editions of the work but he left these errors intact. Even more surprising is the fact that somehow these errors survived the editorial labors of Stephanus and Beza, to arrive unchanged in the hands of the KJV translators, and subsequently ended up in the KJV.
Acts 8 and 9 are also rather expanded in the TR due to material brought over from the Vulgate.
Unfortunately what is often not understood by KJV Only advocates is that the KJV translators did not utilize just one Greek text when working on the NT. They drew from a variety of sources, but mainly from Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza. When these sources diverged, the decision lay with the KJV translators themselves.
Erasmus had to deal with the very same kind of resistance to his work that is put forward by KJV Only Advocates today against modern translations. Sometime compare the arguments of Erasmus’ opponents to the arguments used by AV Alone people today. It really is fascinating!!! The very man to whom KJV defenders must defer for the vast majority of their NT text used the very same methodology and arguments to defend his work that modern textual scholars use to defend the readings of the NASB or NIV!
Erasmus took less than a year to produce his text, which was based on portions of only 5 or 6 late manuscripts (12-14 century). In addition, his work was produced in haste in order to be the first to actually publish a Greek NT. As I mentioned before, Stephanus and Beza revised his text. It is this Greek text, along with Erasmus’ Complutensian Polyglot that was used by the translators to produce the 1st edition of the King James Bible (1611). For most of the text he relied on 2 rather inferior manuscripts in the university library at Basle, one of the Gospels and one of the Acts and Epistles, both dating from about the 12th century. And as mentioned before, because of back translation from Latin into Greek in a manuscript of Revelation here and there are readings which have never been found in ANY known Greek manuscript but which are still perpetuated today in printings of the so-called Textus Receptus of the Greek NT.
In 1624 the Elzevir brothers put out their own edition. In the 2nd edition (1633) the preface claimed that it was the text “best received of all.” This “received text,” known as the TR, is the textual basis for the KJV NT; it differs from the Erasmus text in only a few hundred minor instances.
It is common for KJV Only advocates to dismiss any appeal to the Greek or Hebrew manuscripts, but Erasmus himself criticized Thomas Aquinas and Augustine over and over again in the Annotations for their ignorance of the biblical languages. For example, he said of Augustine at Mark 16:14, “He would have had no reason to raise the question, had he consulted the Greek codices.” In Erasmus’ work, he presented to his critics many of the same arguments and facts used by modern textual scholars. Erasmus pretty much used the same basic methods of textual-critical study that modern scholars use. In fact the basic forms and methods of trying to arrive at the original reading were used by Erasmus even as he collated what became known as the Textus Receptus. For instance, in Romans 4:1 the order of words in the TR (and hence in the KJV) was determined not by the majority of Greek texts, but by Erasmus’ examination of the early Fathers and the Latin text. In another place Erasmus indicated that he “liked” one reading better than the other, even though the one he chose was the minority reading.
KJV Only advocates ridicule modern scholars when they point to the same facts that Erasmus did long ago. The only reason the KJV says “serving the Lord” at Romans 12:11 rather than ‘serving the time” is because the KJV translators chose that reading, which appeared in the 1st edition of Erasmus and in Beza’s text, over the other reading that appeared in the last 4 editions of Erasmus and in Stephanus’ text.
If KJV Only advocates were to be consistent, they would have to reject Erasmus’ work, which is the basis for the KJV, on the very same grounds as the modern translations. Anyone engaging in textual criticism is said to be “judging God’s Word,” yet Erasmus did the very same thing. Of course, you don’t find them rejecting Erasmus’ work, which to me demonstrates that they are inconsistent and self-contradictory. No doubt if Desiderius Erasmus were alive today, he would not be a KJV Only advocate. He would, instead, adamantly reject the very same arguments that he faced so long ago, and in so doing would have to reject the very foundation of the KJV Only position.
Many KJV Only advocates also don’t realize that the standard “Textus Receptus” printed by the Trinitarian Bible Society that is used today by nearly all of them is not identical to Erasmus, Stephanus, or Beza, but is instead an “eclectic” text that draws from various sources. It is ironic to note that this text, often referred to as being “inspired,” did not exist in 1611; that is, the Textus Receptus in its modern form was not used by the KJV translators. Instead, the modern TR is a “made up” text that follows the English KJV in determining which renderings to include. Note the discussion of the variants found between Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza and the KJV translators’ choices between them.
Most of the time the differences between the TR and the modern texts are the same differences that exist between the Byzantine text-type and the other text-types such as the Alexandrian and the Western. It is also vital for people to understand that the TR is NOT identical with the “Majority Text,” even though it is closely related. The TR is its own text, and it is often found in disagreement with the Majority Text as well as with the modern critical texts.
One of the most eloquent arguments against KJV Onlyism is provided, ironically enough, by the translators themselves (you can read this in the preface to the 1611 KJV, entitled The Translators to the Reader). The 1611 translators themselves said that indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob’s well (which is deep) [John 4:11] without a bucket or something to draw with. What the translators themselves are speaking against, is what we are doing by using the KJV today. By not translating into the kind of language we use today, we are guilty of what the translators are speaking against. I notice that when people preach from the KJV, they read a phrase in the KJV and then reword it into modern English. Why not just save themselves a step and use a translation like the NIV that already puts it into modern English and does it in an accurate way? Based on what the KJV translators themselves said, they wouldn’t object to future translations that attempt to modernize the English and still maintain accuracy, since this is the very goal that they themselves had!!
The KJV translators faced the same arguments that are hurled against the godly men who worked on the NASB or NIV: “Wasn’t the KJV good enough for you? Hasn’t God blessed it? Why prepare a new translation? And you can read their reply to these kind of statements.
I have read KJVO advocates call the New KJV “diabolical” because it places all the variant readings of the Greek text in the footnotes. The original KJV translators set marginal notes in their texts just as the modern translations do, so can they logically refrain from calling the KJV itself diabolical since its translators did the very same thing?
The KJV translators themselves made no claims for divine inspiration; indeed, they frankly conceded theirs was not a perfect translation (contrary to what the KJO advocates falsely claim). The translators also say in their preface to the reader by noting their expectation that their translation will come under unfair criticism and attack, as the translators of the NASB and NIV. Dr. Samuel C. Gipp says of the 1611 KJV, “I believe the King James Bible is perfect” and Peter Ruckman even thinks “[So-called] Mistakes in the A.V. 1611 are advanced revelation!” If this wasn’t so sad, I would laugh! What is he talking about?
KJVO proponents claim that the KJV only thoroughly defends salvation by grace through faith alone and that, in many places, the new translations actually insert salvation by good works. See chapter 15 of New Age Bible Versions by G.A. Riplinger. If you use this same (faulty) logic as the KJO advocates and cite select passages which seem to teach salvation by works, one could argue that it is the KJV itself which distorts the doctrine of salvation. Why do you think that the favorite Bible of cults (like Mormons) use the KJV? One reason is because in a number of places the KJV verses are less clear than in a reliable modern versions. This fact of being less clear is obvious when I hear people preach from the KJV and they then explain what the KJV meant? Why is it necessary to explain what the KJV meant? If the translation was clear in the first place (it would have been clear to the 1611 readers, but of course the language has changed a lot over the centuries), this would be totally unnecessary.
The KJV translators themselves also encouraged the people to use not only their own translation, but other translations as well in order to secure a fuller comprehension of the Scriptures.
According to Dr. Wallace, “the King James translators knew Greek less well than they knew Latin and so they constantly relied on the Latin to get themselves through the Greek.” This helps explain why the KJV mistranslates Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1, and other places that clearly teach the deity of Christ. The NIV, NASB, etc., have the proper translation of these verses due to their understanding of the Granville Sharp rule (Dr. Wallace’s dissertation was on this rule!).
Proponents of the KJVO often claim that unbelievers, heretics, occultists, and / or homosexuals have been members of the editorial or translation committees of the modern versions which biased their translation in favor of heresy, occultism and sexual sin. This is another gross distortion. Riplinger, for example, claims that lesbian sympathizer Virginia Mollencott was involved in the NIV translation. It is true that Mollencott sat on the literary (stylistic) committee of the NIV, but only for a few months. However, she had nothing to do with the translation, and once her sexual views were known, she was asked to resign. On “The John Ankerberg Show,” Dr. Kenneth Barker, the NIV general editor, states that no one was aware of Mollencott’s sexual preference at the time. The NIV was finished in 1978 and her sexual views were not known until 1983. If the committee had known, “we would not have consulted her at all.” So Riplinger’s arguments are just plain wrong. In Dr. Barker’s words, “homosexual and lesbian practices are condemned just as clearly and strongly in the NIV as in any other English version – see Lev 18:22; 20:13; Rom 1:26-27; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 1 Tim 1:10l and Jude 7.
Riplinger also cites alleged evidence to imply that Greek NT scholar B.F. Westcott was involved in spiritism and, therefore, his work should not be trusted. Riplinger’s allegations are completely false!! For example, she confuses B.F. Westcott with the mortician-spiritualist W. W. Westcott, theorizing the latter individual was actually the former (oops!!). Yet B.F. Westcott was born in 1825 while W.W. Westcott wasn’t born until 1848. Riplinger also cites Arthur Westcott, the son of B.F. Westcott, as supposedly confessing that his father was a spiritualist. In fact, he merely said that his father had seriously investigated spiritualism and concluded, just as seriously, that “such investigations led to no good.” Riplinger has stated publicly that she receives direct revelations from God. Concerning New Age Bible Versions (NABV) she further wrote that she received daily divine guidance — so much so that the book was primarily authored by God (see p. 15 in her book). Since her book contains hundreds of errors, the foolishness of this statement should be self-evident! Her book is a classic example of how NOT to write a book! This is what some top biblical scholars have said about her book (see John Ankerberg and John Weldon’s “The Facts on the King James Only Debate,” in the Anker Series. The book is so seriously flawed, it is virtually worthless. The book is a study in misrepresentation, her information is fatally flawed and completely untrustworthy, she misrepresents historical facts, many errors in cited sources of documentation, and of the writings of those who are being reviewed. Her book is replete with logical, philosophical, theological, biblical, linguistic, and technical errors. She incessantly quotes people out of context and does it repeatedly page after page. She misuses terms, misrepresents manuscript evidence, exaggerates evidence that seems to support her view, suppresses that which contradicts it, repeatedly abuses Scripture and contorts its meaning, employs defective logic, repeatedly fails to document evidence, displays gross ignorance of both Greek and Hebrew, selectively applies criticisms to the NASB/NIV that equally apply to the KJV, and everywhere relies on unreliable authors for information.
Some KJV Only advocates actually go as far as to deny the existence of the LXX. Peter Ruckman said in The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, Pensacola Bible Press, 1976, p. 50, that “people who believe that there was a Septuagint before the time of Christ, are living in a dream world.” Now, who is living in a dream world? The 1611 KJV translators themselves agreed that there was a LXX.
The KJV has undergone many changes in time and the KJV today lacks the marginal notes and references that the original KJV had. Not only that, but the form of the text and the wording of the text has undergone changes over time. People are surprised when they learn that editions with changes in the text came out as soon as 1612, another in 1613, followed by editions in 1616, 1629, and 1638, 1660, 1683, 1727, 1762, 1769, and 1873. Most modern KJVs follow this latter revision made by Benjamin Blayney in 1769. In fact there were two slightly different 1611 editions and six slightly different editions in the 1650s. There are many differences between the 1611 edition and the KJV today: for example the 1611 edition had “Then cometh Judas” in Matt 26:36 and today it is rendered in the KJV as, “Then cometh Jesus.” There were also a few embarrassing printing errors. The 1613 printing omitted the word “not” from the 7th commandment, inadvertently “encouraging” people to commit adultery. This KJV edition became known as the “Wicked Bible.” Another edition of the KJV became known as the “Unrighteous Bible” because it stated that the unrighteous will inherit the kingdom of heaven.
Another problem I see with the KJV is its language is antiquated is many phrases in it are difficult to understand. Here are a few examples:
1. “And Jacob sod pottage: and Esau came from the field, and he was faint” (Gen 25:29). “Once when Jacob was cooking some stew, Esau came in from the open country, famished.”
2. “And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke” (Ex 19:18). “Mount Sinai was covered with smoke.”
3. “”Dead things are formed from under the waters, and the inhabitants thereof” (Job 26:5). “The dead are in deep anguish, those beneath the waters and all that live in them.”
4. “Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing” (Ps 5:6). “You destroy those who tell lies.”
5. “For who can eat, or who else can hasten hereunto, more than I?” (Eccl 2:25). “For without him, who can eat or find enjoyment?”[1]
[2]The meanings of some words were no longer commonly known: almug, chode, chapt, habergeon, hosen, kab, ligure, leasing, neesed, pilled, ring-saked, stacte, strake, trode, wimples, ouches, tatches, occurrent, pruit, fray, nusings, wot, trow, and sod.
If the 1611 edition is the true Word of God, it is no longer in circulation. If not, which KJV edition do KJO writers wish to defend as the inerrant Word of God? The editions of 1611, 1769, and the TR itself have all been advocated.
The American Bible Society examined 6 editions of the KJV in the 19th century and discovered 24,000 variants in the text and punctuation as a result of this survey (see Jack Lewis, The English Bible: From KJV to NIV, 2nd edition, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991, p. 39). In spite of the great number of variants, there is not one which mars the integrity of the text or affects any doctrine or precept of the Bible. This is because the KJ translators had used the same basic principles employed by modern translators, and their skill and scholarship gave us what became the standard English Bible for 400 years.
The above was taken from portions of James R. White’s excellent book, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?, Bethany House Publishers, 1995 and John Ankerberg and John Weldon’s “The Facts on the King James Only Debate,” in the Anker Series.
[1] David Brewer has been on staff with Life in Messiah International (Evangelism, Discipleship, and Training) since 1991, was an adjunct professor at Arizona College of the Bible (1988-1991; Bible, NT Greek, OT Hebrew), Southwestern College (1988-1990; Bible, NT Greek), Jerusalem Biblical University (1992-1993; Bible and NT Greek), Philadelphia Biblical University (1994-2007; Bible, Theology, and OT Hebrew), Toronto Baptist Seminary (2009-2012; NT Greek), and Arrowhead Bible College (2012-; Bible). E-mail: [email protected].
[2] See Erasmus’ Annotations note 2 on Revelation chapter 3. In reality, Reuchlin’s manuscript was only about 400 years old at the time, dating to the 12th century.
[3] Some have identified Gerber as the copyist; others have suggested it was poet laureate Henricus Glareanus who was in Basel at that time.
[1] J. P. Lewis, The English Bible from KJV to NIV: A History and Evaluation, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 53-54.
[2] Ibid., 55.